Negligence and Liability Instance

Master liable – Carriage and horse:

The defendant was engaged in constructing a sewer and employed men with horses and carts. The men so employed were allowed an hour for dinner but were not permitted to go about a quarter of a mile out of the direct line of his work to his dinner and left his horse unattended in the street before his door. The horse ran away and damaged certain railings belonging to the plaintiff. It was held that defendant was liable as the driver was acting within the scope of his employment. The defendant employed a man to drive a cart, with instructions not to leave it, and a lad who had nothing to do with the driving to go in the cart and deliver parcels to customers of the defendant. The driver left the cart, in which lad was, and went into a house. While the driver was absent the lad drove on and came into collision with plaintiff’s carriage. It was held that the negligence of the driver in so leaving the cart was the effective cause of the damage, and that the defendant was liable.

Want of care regarding petrol:

The owner of a motor garage leased it to a firm of motor engineers who agreed with the defendants to give them the use of it as a garage for motor lorries. A youth employed by the defendants while drawing motor spirit from a spirit into a tin, struck a match, lit a cigarette, and then threw the match on the floor. This set light to some oil and petrol lying above the floor; the fire spread to the motor spirit flowing from the drum and the garage was consumed. The owner sued the defendants for the negligence of their servant. It was held that a servant being in an act which was within the scope of his employment and required special caution, and having failed to exercise caution, was guilty of negligence in the course of his employment, and that the defendants were liable.

Negligent driving of motor car

By an arrangement between the owner of a motor car and a friend, the friend was to use the car to drive from B to M, while the owner drove to M, in another car, as a competitor in motor-car rally.it was the intention of the parties that the car driven by the friend should arrive in M before the end of the rally, and that the owner, the friend, and friend’s wife, who was travelling in the car, should then spend a holiday together, using the car for that purpose. Owing to the friend’s negligent driving, the car was involved in a collision with a motor omnibus, which was damaged as a result of the accident. On the question of the liability of the owner of the car for the damage, it was held that the arrangement amounted to a request by the owner of the car to the friend to drive it; as the owner had an interest in the arrival of the car at M, the driving was an act done for his benefit, and the friend was under a social or moral obligation to comply with the request and therefore, the friend was acting as the owner’s agent in driving the car and the owner vicariously liable for his negligence.